Systematic proteomics in Autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease reveals decades-early changes of CSF proteins in neuronal death, and immune pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To date, there is no high throughput proteomic study in the context of Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD). Here, we aimed to characterize early CSF proteome changes in ADAD and leverage them as potential biomarkers for disease monitoring and therapeutic strategies. Methods: We utilized Somascan® 7K assay to quantify protein levels in the CSF from 291 mutation carriers (MCs) and 185 non-carriers (NCs). We employed a multi-layer regression model to identify proteins with different pseudo-trajectories between MCs and NCs. We replicated the results using publicly available ADAD datasets as well as proteomic data from sporadic Alzheimer's disease (sAD). To biologically contextualize the results, we performed network and pathway enrichment analyses. Machine learning was applied to create and validate predictive models. Findings: We identified 125 proteins with significantly different pseudo-trajectories between MCs and NCs. Twelve proteins showed changes even before the traditional AD biomarkers (Aβ42, tau, ptau). These 125 proteins belong to three different modules that are associated with age at onset: 1) early stage module associated with stress response, glutamate metabolism, and mitochondria damage; 2) the middle stage module, enriched in neuronal death and apoptosis; and 3) the presymptomatic stage module was characterized by changes in microglia, and cell-to-cell communication processes, indicating an attempt of rebuilding and establishing new connections to maintain functionality. Machine learning identified a subset of nine proteins that can differentiate MCs from NCs better than traditional AD biomarkers (AUC>0.89). Interpretation: Our findings comprehensively described early proteomic changes associated with ADAD and captured specific biological processes that happen in the early phases of the disease, fifteen to five years before clinical onset. We identified a small subset of proteins with the potentials to become therapy-monitoring biomarkers of ADAD MCs. Funding: Proteomic data generation was supported by NIH: RF1AG044546.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".